Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 77

Thread: Limits of self defense?

  1. #16
    U19 Captain Tricia McMillan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Short Leg
    Posts
    619
    Just had a look on this article again. Laws like the one used to get this kid off the hook are state-based, and it's Florida. Florida's kind of a strange state like that.

    Texas has some pretty dumb laws too, for example, you're allowed to defend your home against an intruder with lethal force. There have been numerous cases where someone broke into a house, got shot and killed, and the person who killed them wasn't prosecuted.
    85.5
    Boult to Mathews, OUT, Caught at second slip! It was a length ball going across Angelo, who tried to hit it hard towards the leg side and got an outside edge that flew fast towards Guptill, who took a reflex catch in front of his face

  2. #17
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    28,178
    From what the article states, the kid was bullied at school and tried to avoid the fight, but was forced into it anyway.

    Tragic and all, but tough bikkies to the kid who died. If you're going to be a massive ****, you need to accept the infinitely small possibility you might not live to go home and play xbox or whatever it is kids do.

    In fact, after reading the article again, I have even less sympathy for Nuno. If you are going to be a bully, deal with the consequences ****.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  3. #18
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    28,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux View Post
    So when someone punches you in the back of the head, it's OK to take out your knife and stab him 12 times. What a joke.
    Natural selection tbh.

  4. #19
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    C A D E N C E
    Posts
    31,372
    Would say even a preemptive strike would be acceptable self defence in some, perhaps limited, instances to be honest.


  5. #20
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    43,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Tricia McMillan View Post
    Texas has some pretty dumb laws too, for example, you're allowed to defend your home against an intruder with lethal force. There have been numerous cases where someone broke into a house, got shot and killed, and the person who killed them wasn't prosecuted.
    I honestly don't have a problem with that at all.
    ~ Cribbage

  6. #21
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    C A D E N C E
    Posts
    31,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I honestly don't have a problem with that at all.
    In principle I don't either, but there have been numerous high profile cases in the UK where the limits of that sort of policy have been exposed somewhat.

    The farmer Tony Martin shot two guys in the back after they decided they saw him coming and tried to run away, and ended up dead. This form of self defence isn't allowed here anyway, and I think Mr Martin ended up in jail...but it's a useful example of when "lethal force" isn't the cleverest thing to allow.

    Similarly these was some case where a guy in Manchester (iirc) chased an intruder out of his house with a golf club, and then decided to lay into him with it about 3 streets away. Can this really be considered defending your property? Sounds more like vigilantism to me.

  7. #22
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    All Glory To The Nev
    Posts
    32,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I honestly don't have a problem with that at all.
    yeah you wouldn't
    Indians can't bowl - Where has the rumour come from as I myself and many indian friends arwe competent fast bowlers ?

    With the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left

  8. #23
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,837
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    In principle I don't either, but there have been numerous high profile cases in the UK where the limits of that sort of policy have been exposed somewhat.

    The farmer Tony Martin shot two guys in the back after they decided they saw him coming and tried to run away, and ended up dead. This form of self defence isn't allowed here anyway, and I think Mr Martin ended up in jail...but it's a useful example of when "lethal force" isn't the cleverest thing to allow.

    Similarly these was some case where a guy in Manchester (iirc) chased an intruder out of his house with a golf club, and then decided to lay into him with it about 3 streets away. Can this really be considered defending your property? Sounds more like vigilantism to me.
    Don't break in to someone else's house then. Zero sympathy.
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

  9. #24
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    43,334
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    In principle I don't either, but there have been numerous high profile cases in the UK where the limits of that sort of policy have been exposed somewhat.

    The farmer Tony Martin shot two guys in the back after they decided they saw him coming and tried to run away, and ended up dead. This form of self defence isn't allowed here anyway, and I think Mr Martin ended up in jail...but it's a useful example of when "lethal force" isn't the cleverest thing to allow.

    Similarly these was some case where a guy in Manchester (iirc) chased an intruder out of his house with a golf club, and then decided to lay into him with it about 3 streets away. Can this really be considered defending your property? Sounds more like vigilantism to me.
    Obviously there has to be a limit to it; once the intruders are off your property then all bets are off, for example. If someone broke into my house when I was in it I'd be absolutely ****-scared though; and if I could lay my hands on a weapon I'd probably be too nervous to consider how whether or not they decided to run away would change the game, so to speak. There's really no telling what someone who's broken into your house is going to do if they come across you; it's more about protecting yourself against an obviously aggressive threat than protecting your property.

  10. #25
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,811
    To use a hackneyed phrase two wrongs don't make a right

    There would be an outcry if the state was allowed to act as Judge, jury and executioner - don't see why it should be any different if a private individual does

  11. #26
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    C A D E N C E
    Posts
    31,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Obviously there has to be a limit to it; once the intruders are off your property then all bets are off, for example. If someone broke into my house when I was in it I'd be absolutely ****-scared though; and if I could lay my hands on a weapon I'd probably be too nervous to consider how whether or not they decided to run away would change the game, so to speak. There's really no telling what someone who's broken into your house is going to do if they come across you; it's more about protecting yourself against an obviously aggressive threat than protecting your property.
    Yeah, I don't disagree to be honest. I'd do exactly the same as you, but I'm always worried about things that allow people to become a law unto themselves.

  12. #27
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    43,334
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    Yeah, I don't disagree to be honest. I'd do exactly the same as you, but I'm always worried about things that allow people to become a law unto themselves.
    Yeah there's a fine line in deciding whether the thought process was essentially "I have to do something here or I could be taking a dirt nap soon" or "Yeah take that you bastard; no-one breaks in my house", but well that's why we have courts. I'd certainly not be in favour of letting every situation like that be; but Tricia referenced "numerous cases" rather than "every case", and I certainly think it'd be justified quite a bit tbh.

    That comes from someone firmly against the death penalty too; it's a self-protection/defence issue rather than a vigilantism one IMO.

  13. #28
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    C A D E N C E
    Posts
    31,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Pickup View Post
    Don't break in to someone else's house then. Zero sympathy.
    I have zero sympathy for these sorts of people as well. That's not to say, however, that no blame should be apportioned to someone who wraps a cricket bat around their head and kills them. Not necessarily anyway.

  14. #29
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    19,734
    I have no sympathy for anyone who gets hurt or killed whilst they're breaking in somewhere but at the same time I'm not convinced using lethal force, as you're allowed to do in Texas, is really an appropriate response to a threat against property.

  15. #30
    International Vice-Captain Redbacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NT
    Posts
    4,150
    Insurance has paved the way for more lenient treatment of invaders or robbers. Like GF says, property is usually not worth losing ones life over. Insurance should tip the balance towards 'give the ****ers what they want' and the cops will (possibly) get them later and you can just claim the material goods back.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. State Prosecutor or Defense Attorney?
    By Slow Love™ in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 08:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •